Unfortunate report on new Ram
From an earlier thread we ordered and got our brand new Ram 3500 6.4 on August 23. We were in the process of putting 500 miles on her so we could change the rear differential fluid to take her on our ...
Forum Discussion
Don...agree and kinda sorta disagree on ISO-9000
In order to qualify and become certified ISO-9000 compliant, they have to prove lots and lots of process/documentation/etc/etc/etc testing...but...Missing is re-certification. As once ISO-9000 compliance is awarded...there is NO retesting and self regulation is the order of the day
That is where I agree with your issues...
We used to have unscheduled and random timed QC inspections *AT* their plant. If anything failed and/or had too low of an AQL (acceptable quality level)...the whole lot was refused to be certified to ship
Of course computer corporation stuff and not automotive, but the process metrics should not be much different
Reminded of that process a few weeks ago during a lunch with an old QA manager, who now works at Tesla Fremont/NUMI plant.
He was tough as nails on what your issues are about.
Once his QC person emailed the PO/LOT numbers (CC'd the provider)...EVERYTHING in reference to that PO/LOT numbers were on hold. Receiving would NOT allow anything to be unloaded at the docks
Hope your management gets that resolved. Way less money to spend more on the upfront than to have this kind of stuff happen on the line...and frustrate everyone in the process
One hypothesis is that the leak is a slow one...that a production leakdown would NOT catch...but...that is gone now that they tore it down
In order to qualify and become certified ISO-9000 compliant, they have to prove lots and lots of process/documentation/etc/etc/etc testing...but...Missing is re-certification. As once ISO-9000 compliance is awarded...there is NO retesting and self regulation is the order of the day
That is where I agree with your issues...
We used to have unscheduled and random timed QC inspections *AT* their plant. If anything failed and/or had too low of an AQL (acceptable quality level)...the whole lot was refused to be certified to ship
Of course computer corporation stuff and not automotive, but the process metrics should not be much different
Reminded of that process a few weeks ago during a lunch with an old QA manager, who now works at Tesla Fremont/NUMI plant.
He was tough as nails on what your issues are about.
Once his QC person emailed the PO/LOT numbers (CC'd the provider)...EVERYTHING in reference to that PO/LOT numbers were on hold. Receiving would NOT allow anything to be unloaded at the docks
Hope your management gets that resolved. Way less money to spend more on the upfront than to have this kind of stuff happen on the line...and frustrate everyone in the process
One hypothesis is that the leak is a slow one...that a production leakdown would NOT catch...but...that is gone now that they tore it down
